THE 


DEMOCRATIC PARTY 

AND 

CIVIL SERVICE REFORM 

A PAPER 

PREPARED FOR THE ANNUAL MEETING OF 

The National Civil-Sebvice Reform League 

AT CINCINNATI, OHIO, 

DECEMBER 17, 1897, 


HON. MOORFIELD STOREY. 

f/ 


PUBLISHED FOR THE 

IvJATIONAL CIVIL-SERVICE REFORM LEAGUE. 
1897. 



f 


1 


V 


/ 


T- 


\. 



•• T 


I 




\ '* 

, 'i 


I 


\ 


‘ I 

I 


y 

% 


/ 





• A 

- . 




/ 


\ 


k 

\ 



' $ 


' y 


y 


I * • 

' 1 m 

J . 


N 


1 


\ 


V 

\ 


I 


\ 


% 


« 




I 




t 


t 


I 


1 

, \ 



P. ■ "•' " 

.* -i 

7 Je’D4 

% 

\ 

\ 

• > 

r 

i 



The Democratic Party and Civil Service 
Reform. 


By Moorfield Storey. 


It may properly be said that the Democratic Party is un¬ 
der a peculiar obligation to promote the reform of the civil 
service; the obligation felt by every honorable man, to repair 
a wrong which he has done. It was the Democratic party 
under the lead of Andrew Jackson which first treated the pub¬ 
lic offices as plunder and which under him and his successors 
cherished the spoils system so lovingly as to make it a cardi¬ 
nal principle of our government. In thirty years it had be¬ 
come so well established that even President Lincoln in the 
midst of our civil war recognized its binding force. He could 
say in his despair, “ I wish I had time to attend to the South¬ 
ern question, but these office seekers demand all my time. I 
am like a man so busy letting rooms at one end of my house 
that I have not time to put out the fire which is burning in the 
other,” but he could not escape from degrading bondage to 
the barbarous maxim, ‘^To the victors belong the spoils.” 

It is not perhaps surprising that a party, devoted to the 
support of slavery as the Democratic party then was, did not 
clearly see how inconsistent with true Democratic principles 
was a system which made every officeholder a slave, whose 
acts, whose words and whose opinions, even, must be subject 
to the will of his patron and master. The slavery contest 
was in fact a war, in which, as in every war, God was forgot¬ 
ten. In the struggle to retain the control of the government 
the,Democratic leaders used every weapon that opportunity 
offered, and did not stop to reconcile their practice too nicely 
with the traditional principles of their party. In the heat of 
that tremendous conflict the American people had no time to 
consider administrative reform. 

When however the contest was over and the smoke of the 
battle had cleared away, the scandals of the spoils system, 
which like every other abuse had flourished amid the disorders 




of war, forced themseives upon the public attention. The 
evils which had been tolerated under the first administration of 
General Grant had made men think, and many of the most earn¬ 
est Republicans were beginning to waver in their allegiance 
to an organization, which seemed determined to ignore or con¬ 
done the corrupting practices of party leaders. 

The Democrats saw the weak point in the record of their 
opponents and sought to attract dissatisfied Republicans by 
espousing the cause of reform. The party needed new issues 
and new leaders, and it did not shrink even from the desper¬ 
ate step of nominating a life-long enemy, in the person of 
Horace Greeley, as its candidate for President. 

The reform of the civil service was already commanding 
strong support. President Grant had commended it to the 
attention of Congress in his message of December 5th, 1870^ 
and on March 3d, 1871, the first civil service reform law received 
his approval. The experiment had begun when the National 
Democratic Convention was held in 1872, and the Democratic 
party took an unequivocal position on the question. Its lan¬ 
guage was clear and distinct. 

“ The civil service of the Government has become a mere 
instrument of partisan tyranny and personal ambition and an 
object of selfish greed. It is a scandal and reproach upon 
free institutions and breeds a demoralization dangerous to 
the perpetuity of Republican government. We therefore re¬ 
gard a thorough reform of the civil service as one of the most 
pressing necessities of the hour.” 

This is strong language, but it only expressed the unani¬ 
mous opinion of the American people at the time, if we may 
judge from platform professions, for the conventions of all 
parties made similar declarations. The spirit of independence 
was abroad in the land, and independent votes were in de¬ 
mand. 

The result of the election in the autumn of 1872 gave the 
Democratic party no opportunity of proving its sincerity. The 
war was too recent. The Republicans retained power by an 
overwhelming majority, but used it so that in 1876 the people 
found themselves engaged in the most doubtful political con¬ 
test which the country had known. The Democratic party 
selected as its candidate a Democrat and undertook in 
its platform to state the principles of the Democratic 


5 


party. Among these was included the reform of the civil ser¬ 
vice, and no party ever made a stronger and clearer declara¬ 
tion on this subject than the following statement, which is said 
to have been written by Mr. Tilden, then fresh from his vic¬ 
tory over the spoils system in the City and State of New 
York. 

“ Reform is necessary in the civil service. Experience 
proves that efficient economical conduct of the governmental 
business is not possible, if its civil service be subject to 
change at every election, be a prize fought for at the ballot 
box, be a brief reward of party zeal instead of posts of honor, 
assigned for proved competency and held for fidelity in the 
public employ ; that the dispensing of patronage should nei¬ 
ther be a tax upon the time of all our public men nor the 
instrument of their ambition. . . . President, Vice-President, 
Judges, Senators, Representatives, Cabinet officers, these and 
all others in authority are the people’s servants. Their of¬ 
fices are not a private perquisite: they are a public trust.” 

Taught perhaps by adversity, but with every prospect of 
power before it, the Democratic party returned to the prin¬ 
ciples of its founders. It recognized the great truth that the 
spoils system rests upon patronage, and that patronage is 
aristocratic and not democratic. No man should owe the 
privilege of serving his country to the favor of another. All 
are entitled to equal opportunities, and the country, another 
name for us - all, is entitled to the best service. The equal 
rights of all and the greatest good of the greatest number, 
these are the corner stones of Democracy and of civil ser¬ 
vice reform. The Democratic party, freed from the blight of 
slavery, became again a great power in the nation when it 
re-asserted its fundamental principles in the language just 
quoted. 

In 1880 the party in general language pledged itself “anew 
to the constitutional doctrines and traditions of the Democra¬ 
tic party, embodied in the platform of the National Conven¬ 
tion of the party ” including “ a general and thorough reform 
of the civil service.” This must be interpreted as reiterating 
the language which has been quoted from the earlier platform, 
though in itself less specific. 

It is not, however, from party platforms that the purposes 
of a party are to be gathered. In the same year Mr. Pendle- 


6 


ton, of Ohio, a Democratic leader, introduced in the Senate 
of the United States “ a bill to regulate and improve the civil 
service of the United States,” which was referred to a select 
committee of the Senate. This bill was modelled upon the 
earlier measure of Mr. Jen ekes, but before any action was 
taken upon it, a carefully framed bill prepared by several 
gentlemen who had the subject much at heart, among whom 
that early, devoted and unwavering friend of our cause, Mr. 
Dorman B. Eaton, was most active, was laid before Mr. Pen¬ 
dleton and by him readily accepted as a substitute for his own 
less perfect measure. This bill was reported by Mr. Pendle¬ 
ton on Februry i6th, i88i, and he presented with it an ad¬ 
mirable report, in which he took the most advanced ground 
in favor of the reform. 

This bill was not reached during the session, but he intro¬ 
duced it again and on December 13th, 1881, supported it 
with a powerful speech, closing with an appeal to his party 
associates, in which he said, “ We are not in majority. We 
have no offices now. The chances of time will sooner or 
later put them in our grasp. Let us now declare that we will 
have none of their offices except those which may be won by 
merit, let us give this earnest of our sincerity in a great re¬ 
form, let us give this token of the purity and patriotism of 
our coming administration of the government, let us convince 
the people, even our opponents, that we contend for power 
not that we may enjoy the emoluments of office^ but that we 
may lead the country in the pathways of advancement and 
beneficence under the inspiration of a true democracy. The 
patronage, however pleasant for the moment, is a snare and a 
curse to any man or party.” 

Thus by a Democratic leader, in a speech which states the 
true principles of his party, was launched for a second time 
the great measure, which was to become the law of this country. 

It was referred again to the committee and carefully con¬ 
sidered. On May 15th, 1882, it was reported by Mr. Pendle¬ 
ton to the Senate with a recommendation that it pass, and 
the report which accompanied it contained a statement of evi¬ 
dence and facts, which was of the greatest value. The bill 
did not come up for a consideration during that session. The 
Republican party controlled the government and their Presi¬ 
dent had urged the reform, but the House had refused to ap- 


7 


propriate even the modest sum of $25,000 for the support of the 
civil service commission, and only on the motion of Mr. Hol¬ 
man, a Democrat, appropriated $ 15,000. This was the era of Jay 
Hubbell, and in this company I need say no more. The at¬ 
mosphere of Congress when he was the chairman of the Re¬ 
publican Congressional Committee was not favorable to civil 
service reform. 

The people, however, were not blind, and when Congress 
met again December, 1882, the Democratic party had swept 
the country. In many districts it was Republican hostility to 
civil service reform that defeated their candidates. Theodore 
Lyman in Massachusetts was elected on that issue and so 
were others, though less clearly. Congress understood the 
lesson. The session began on December 4th, 1882, and on 
the 12th Senator Pendleton brought his bill before the Sen¬ 
ate, which entered upon its consideration with such diligence 
that on the 27th of December it passed the Senate by a vote 
of thirty-eight to five. The five were all Democrats, to their 
shame be it said, but the leaders of the party, Bayard, Pendle¬ 
ton, Lamar, Vest, Garland and even Gorman supported the 
bill, and that just after their triumph at the polls seemed to 
assure them the control of the offices in the near future. 

The House was more expeditious. On January 4th the 
Senate bill was reported, and after thirty minutes’ debate was 
passed by a vote of one hundred and fifty-five to forty-seven. 
Neither party was unanimous, but only a small minority of 
either was found to oppose the bill. This result conspicu¬ 
ously shows the salutary effect of defeat upon a party, and the 
lesson may well be taken to heart. Congressmen are quick 
to see what votes really mean, and out of many issues dis¬ 
cussed they select with unerring accuracy the real cause of 
their,defeat. The change of heart wrought by adversity was 
quick and complete. Even Jay Hubbell did not record his 
vote against the bill. 

Such is the part which the Democratic party took in lay¬ 
ing the foundation of the merit system. It was a Democrat 
who led the contest, he was supported by the leaders of his 
party, and it was a Democratic victory which persuaded Con¬ 
gress to pass the bill. The statute then enacted has since 
held its place, and every year has furnished fresh evidence 
that it was framed wisely. 


8 


Since the passage of this act the the duty of carrying on 
the work by extending and perfecting the national system has 
devolved upon the executive. There is much that the legis¬ 
lature can still do, but to-day the pressure is rather to undo 
than to do. Our efforts are needed to hold the ground which 
we have won. The President now, as ever since the reform was 
inaugurated, is more enlightened than Congress. 

It was in 1884 that, for the first time since civil service re¬ 
form became a burning issue, a Democratic President was 
elected, and the party had an opportunity of proving the sin¬ 
cerity of its professions. The nomination of Grover Cleve¬ 
land in itself pledged the party to civil service reform, for his 
record was known. He had signed the first State reform law. 
He had appointed an admirable commission headed by John 
Jay. He had seconded their efforts, and was thoroughly 
committed to the cause. The declarations in his letter of ac¬ 
ceptance were full and explicit. I may perhaps quote a few 
sentences to remind you with what distinct promises the Demo¬ 
cratic party returned to power. 

The selection and retention of subordinates in govern¬ 
ment employment should depend on their ascertained fitness 
and the value of their work, and they should neither be ex¬ 
pected nor allowed to do questionable party service. The in¬ 
terest of the people will be better protected. The estimate of 
public labor and duty will be immensely improved. Public 
employment will be open to all who can demonstrate their fit¬ 
ness to enter it, . . . and the public departments will not 
be filled with those who conceive it their first duty to aid the 
party to which they owe their places, instead of rendering 
patient and honest return to the people.” 

Ante-election professions are notoriously unreliable. The 
ordinary politician accepts as a political axiom the remark 
of the eminent English statesman, “ However much a party 
may gain by making promises, it always loses by fulfilling 
them.” President Cleveland, however, took the earliest op¬ 
portunity to renew in office the pledges he had made as a 
candidate. In his inaugural address he said with emphasis : 
“ The people demand reform in the administration of the gov¬ 
ernment and the application of business to public affairs. As 
a means to this end, civil service reform should be in good 
faith enforced. . . . Those who worthily seek public em- 


9 


ployment have the right to insist that merit and competency 
shall be recognized instead of party subserviency.” 

The President gave the most striking proof of his sincer¬ 
ity when at the very outset of his term he reappointed Henry 
G. Pearson as Postmaster of New York. We all remember 
how good men of every party hailed this act and how it ex¬ 
cited the politicians, though as Mr. Schurz then said, “ This is 
probably the only civilized country on the face of the globe 
where the reappointment of a very efficient capable public 
officer, regardless of political opinion, would be looked upon as 
anything extraordinary.” Yet we must confess with shame 
that in this country it was an extraordinary thing, and it 
afforded us extraordinary pleasure, not only for itself, but be¬ 
cause we thought we saw it in the determination to apply the 
true rule in all appointments. 

The standard, however, was too high, not merely for Demo¬ 
crats, but for some civil service reformers. It was not long 
before the specious suggestion of dividing the offices equally 
between the two great parties began to find favor, as if the ob¬ 
ject of civil service reform was only to insure a fair division of 
spoils. Others urged that if an officer was allowed to 
serve out his term, it was quite right then to fill the office for 
political reasons, as if civil service reform meant only a gradual 
distribution of spoils,—a postponement of plunder. There 
seemed to many a crying injustice in perpetuating an official 
force from which Democrats for years had been carefully ex¬ 
cluded, and the people were not sufficiently educated to under¬ 
stand the true faith. The Democratic party was not unselfish 
enough to find sound principle attractive, when it triumphed 
at its cost, and when the pertinacious efforts of spoilsmen 
were met in a spirit of compromise by the friends of reform, it 
is not perhaps surprising that the standard was lowered. The 
breach once made, it was hard to defend the fort. Within 
the classified service the rules were applied with reasonable 
fidelity, but other offices were filled with little regard to the 
principles of reform. I need only allude to the changes in the 
Postal Service and the Indian Service. Facts and figures 
might be given in tedious detail, but it is enough to quote the 
summing up of Mr. Curtis in his address to the National 
League on August 3, 1887, when he said: 

“ Practically there has been a very general partisan recon- 


lO 


struction of the national civil service,” and “ It would be a 
great wrong to the cause of which the League is the author¬ 
ized national representative if it did not plainly and emphat¬ 
ically declare that it does not regard the administration, however 
worthy of respect and confidence for many reasons, as in any 
strict sense of the words a civil service reform administration.” 

We cannot doubt that the President was entirely sincere in 
his promises of reform. He was a reformer by convic¬ 
tion, and his courage and strength of will were beyond 
question. That he failed so completely to realize his promises 
shows how great was the pressure and how slight the assist¬ 
ance which he got from the public. The education of the 
people was not complete. 

But while he failed conspicuously to realize our hopes, he 
satisfied the Democratic party, which in its national platform 
of 1888 declared that “ Honest reform in the civil service has 
been inaugurated and maintained by President Cleveland,” 
This was a practical interpretation by politicians of Demo¬ 
cratic promises. 

Yet the President, while falling far short of our hopes, ad¬ 
vanced the reform materially while in office. He found some 
fourteen thousand offices covered by the rules when he was 
inaugurated, and he extended the rules so as to add many more, 
including that important branch of the public service, the Rail¬ 
way Mail Service, and the Bureau of Engraving and Printing. 
In all some thirteen thousand six hundred places were added 
to the classified service during his first term. He also, by 
ordering various investigations, made office-holders feel that the 
reform law was in active operation and that its provisions could 
not be neglected with impunity. During his term the civil 
service reformers were organized and militant, and public edu¬ 
cation progressed rapidly. Perhaps nothing helped to make 
men realize the hold which the spoils system had taken upon 
our people more than the fact that a man so courageous, so 
sincere and so strong as President Cleveland, had been over¬ 
borne so completely by the pressure for office. 

The Republican party, with the strongest professions in its 
platform and the most specific promises by its candidate, came 
into power, largely helped by the votes of civil service reform¬ 
ers, who had been disappointed by Mr. Cleveland and who 
turned with hope to Mr. Harrison. It is not for me, however. 


II 


to record in this paper how far their hopes were realized. It is 
enough to say that when the next Presidential election came Mr. 
Cleveland and Mr. Harrison again led their respective parties. 

Four years of adversity had quickened the zeal of the Demo¬ 
cratic party for reform. Their declaration in national con¬ 
vention was distinct. “ Public office is a public trust. We 
reaffirm the declaration of the Democratic National Conven¬ 
tion of 1876 for the reform of the civil service,” which was 
quoted, “ and we call for the honest enforcement of all laws 
regulating the same.” President Cleveland in his letter of ac¬ 
ceptance commended “ an honest adherence to the letter and 
spirit of civil service reform,” and made other public declar¬ 
ations which gave reformers great reason for hope that his 
singularly independent position would enable a man of his 
high purpose and great courage to carry his principles into 
practice. 

The loot of the consulships which immediately followed 
his return to power was a bitter disappointment. This, 
with the removals of fourth class postmasters and other depart¬ 
ures from sound principle, excited indignant comment at the 
time, and nothing has occurred since to make us retract any¬ 
thing that was said in condemnation of the removals then 
made. We must not forget, however, that in his own time and 
in his own way President Cleveland showed his earnest pur¬ 
pose to advance the reform by extending the classified service 
almost to the possible limit. By his order of May 6, 1895, he 
placed under the civil service rules some 30,000 more 
positions, making the total of classified positions 87,098, and 
reducing the exempted places from over 2,000 to 775. This 
order also swept away many opportunties for abuse and made 
the entire code of rules much more simple and effective. No 
greater service to the cause of reform has been rendered by 
any President, and his party should remember that in doing 
what he did Mr. Cleveland simply fulfilled their promises, re¬ 
cognizing perhaps that the true Democratic party was the 
many million voters who made him President, and not the few 
thousand office seekers for whom no votes were cast. 
The impudence with which these pestilent persons assume that 
a battle upon great issues is fought only to provide them with 
salaries is amazing, but it is even more amazing that the real 
nature of their pretensions and their relative unimportance are 
not seen more clearly by intelligent men. 


12 


Nor was this all. During the same administration Post¬ 
master-General Wilson put into operation the best scheme 
that has yet been devised for extending the merit system to the 
fourth class offices,—the gradual consolidation of neighboring 
offices by making them stations of a central office. This 
change, which increased efficiency and diminished expense, 
was too serious a blow at the patronage of Senators and it was 
accordingly prohibited by law. One Democratic spoilsman who 
was prominent in the work has lost his re-election and he per¬ 
haps now recognizes that to the civil service reformers whom 
he has long contemned, his defeat is in great part due. We 
may well tender to our friends in Maryland our congratulations 
upon a victory which crowns one of the most determined and 
persistent struggles that our movement has seen. 

And so if, at the end of May 1896, we had taken a retro¬ 
spective view of our struggle, we should have seen the Demo¬ 
cratic party as soon as it recovered from the strain of the war 
pledging itself to civil service reform. We should have seen 
the present law introduced and championed by a Democratic 
statesman with the support of his party’s leaders. We should 
have found in a Democratic victory the impulse which carried 
it through Congress, and we should have seen the system 
which the law established carried to its highest development 
by a Democratic President. We should have seen that at 
every step in its progress Democratic “ Bosses ” and Demo¬ 
cratic office-seekers have opposed reform as much as they 
dared, and that their concentrated and persistent efforts had 
proved so powerful as to make a Democratic President con¬ 
cede much that his party’s promises forbade. None the 
less these influences had not availed to change the position of 
the party as a whole. Whenever it met in National Conven¬ 
tion it had reaffirmed more or less clearly its allegiance to the 
reform, which had by repeated declarations become firmly es¬ 
tablished as a cardinal article of Democratic faith. 

A few weeks later the situation changed, and the Demo¬ 
cratic organization turned its back upon the leaders who had 
carried it to victory, and renounced the essential principles of 
Democracy which are the source of its marvellous vitality. 
Am.ong other great Democratic causes which it abandoned 
was the cause of civil service reform. The declaration of the 
Democratic Convention of 1896 was a model of that perverted 


13 


dexterity which is able to “ keep the word of promise to our 
ear but break it to our hope.” This is the language: 

“ We are opposed to life tenure in the public service. We 
favor appointments based upon merit, fixed terms of office, 
and such an administration of the civil service laws as will 
afford equal opportunities to all citizens of ascertained fitnesst’* 

This may seem to promise reform but the first sentence is 
the key to its true meaning. There is no life tenure, and this 
attempt to mislead is in keeping with the demagoguery of the 
whole Bryan movement, which brought the Democratic party 
to defeat at the polls, as overwhelming as it was richly de¬ 
served. 

But even then men were found who, without hope of 
political preferment, held to the faith and rallied round the 
standard of true Democracy. These men made at Indianap¬ 
olis the strongest declaration of devotion to our cause and their 
sincerity is doubted by no one. They stand to-day the only 
representatives of the true Democratic party. 

From this retrospect it appears, and perhaps the lesson is 
worth teaching, that the strength of the Democratic party at 
the polls has increased and decreased with its support of re¬ 
form. When it has taken the highest ground on this question, 
it* has won. When it has receded or faltered, it has lost. 
While there was in the country a strong body of voters, not 
tied by partisan feeling to either organization, but considering 
only the welfare of the country, their votes were the prize for 
which each party bid. A distinct declaration in favor of civil 
service reform was necessary to win their support. Each party 
out of office, and seeking to regain it, has been willing to 
promise more than the same party in office and expecting to 
retain it. The disappointed office seekers of a Presidential 
term have had influence enough in the next national conven¬ 
tion of their party to lower the standard. When this surrender 
of public interests to private demands has been followed by 
defeat, the standard rises again. 

The activity of Republican spoilsmen to-day is readily ex¬ 
plained by the disorganization of the compact force which has 
stood for reform so long. With the Democratic party com¬ 
mitted to the spoils and to heresy of every kind, the Republi¬ 
cans feel that no reform voter can support a Democratic can¬ 
didate. Believing that the votes of reformers are secure. Re- 


14 


publican politicians feel it safe to take a little risk of disgusting 
them for the sake of reviving the good old days when every 
Congressman was a patron, who could buy his election with 
the money of the people, ostensibly spent for the public ser¬ 
vice, but really to pay for personal support. If we would in¬ 
fluence either party, we must still stand a compact body, 
ready to vote for either which will best help our cause, or 
better still form a new party, organized to promote by active 
work what we have at heart. The practice of Hobson’s 
choice, the election between two evils, has gone too far. Let 
us hope for a party which will give us a positive good. 

The real feeling of the two parties can best be judged in 
the States where each has undisputed sway. If this field is 
examined, it will be found that in proportion as their power is 
unquestioned, their zeal for civil service reform has languished. 
Men who are in earnest use their power to accomplish their 
real ends, and the failure to use established power in our cause 
shows that the earnest purpose is lacking. Those of us who 
have enlisted for the war must stand together, must increase 
our efforts, must rally to our banner new recruits and must be¬ 
come an organized force, which both parties will fear. The 
organization of the Gold Democrats is heartily with us, and 
where independent action is needed we can unite our force 
with theirs; but the lesson of our whole movement, tite lesson 
which Grosvenor and Gallinger are teaching us to-day is that 
our strength lies in independence, and that unwavering allegi¬ 
ance to either party is inconsistent with true devotion to civil 
service reform. 

To the Democratic party we may commend the study of 
their own history. They will find that their principles, their 
consistent declarations for twenty-five years, and the teach¬ 
ings of their great leaders all support our cause, and that the 
spoils system is undemocratic. They will find that when they 
have been strongest in their support of reform, they have been 
strongest in the country, and that as they have faltered, they 
have lost ground. Wherever civil service reformers have been 
strong they have been prompt to punish any treachery to their 
cause. The party must return to Democratic principles, if it is 
ever again to be trusted with power, and it must abandon a 
course which drives from its ranks the men who have led it to 
victory. Whenever it is ready in all sincerity to say again 


15 


< 


with Pendleton, “ We contend for power, not that we may en¬ 
joy the emoluments of office, but that we may lead the coun¬ 
try in the pathways of advancement and beneficence under the 
inspiration of a true Democracy,” nothing can keep it from 
the lasting control of the government. Till then it deserves 
and will meet only defeat. 


0 


\ 


Publications of the New York Civil-Service Reform Asso'n 


The Beginning of the Spoils System in the National Govern¬ 
ment, 1829-30. (Reprinted, by permission, from Parton’s “Life 
of Andrew Jackson.”) Per copy, 5 cts. 

Term and Tenure of Office. By Dorman B. Eaton. Second edition, 
abridged. Per copy. 15 cts. 

Daniel Webster and the Spoils System. An extract from Senator 
Bayard’s oration at Dartmouth College, June, 1882. 

A Primer of Civil-Service Beform, prepared by George William 
Curtis. (English and German Editions.) 

The Workingman’s Interest in Civil-Service Reform. Address by 
Hon. Henry A. Richmond. 

Annual Reports of the C. S. R. A. of New York for the years 
1883-1897 inclusive. 

Constitution and By-Laws of the New York Association. 


MISCELLANEOUS. 

United States Civil-Service Statutes and Revised Rules of May 
6, 1896. 

State Civil-Service Reform Acts of New York and Massachu¬ 
setts. 

Decisions and Opinions in Construction of the Civil-Service Laws. 
Per copy, 15 cts. 

The Meaning of Civil-Service Reform, By E. O. Graves. 
Civil-Service Reform as a Moral Question. By Charles J. Bonaparte. 
Constitution of the National Civil-Service Reform League. 

The Selection of Laborers. (In English and German Editions). By 
Jame§ M. Bugbee late of the Massachusetts Civil-Service Commission. 
Report of Select Committee on Reform in the Civil Service 
(H. R.), regarding the registration of laborers in the United States 
Service. 

Report of same Committee regarding selection of Fourth-Class 
Postmasters. 

George William Curtis. A commemorative address by Parke Godwin. 
(Published by the Century Association). 10 cents per copy. 


(a charge is made only where the price is given.) 


Orders for the publications will be filled by George McAneny, Secret 
tary, 54 William St., New York, or by G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 27 and 29 West 
23d St., New York. 









PRESIDENT: 


CARL SCHURZ. 

SECRETARY: TREASURER: 

GEORGE McANENY. A. S. FRISSELL. 

VICE-PRESIDENTS: 

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS, HENRY HITCHCOCK, 

AUGUSTUS R. MACDONOUGH, HENRY C. LEA, 

RT. REV. HENRY C. POTTER, FRANKLIN MACVEAGH, 

J. HALL PLEASANTS, RT. REV. P. J. RYAN, 

WILLIAM POTTS. 



EXECUTIVE 

WM. A. AIKEN, 

CHARLES J. BONAPARTE. 

SILAS W. BURT, 

EDWARD CARY, 

CHARLES COLLINS, 

LUCIUS B. SWIFT, 

RICHARD H. DANA, 

JOHN W. ELA, 

WILLIAM DUDLEY FOULKE, 
RICHARD WATSON GILDER, 

MORRILL 

Office of 


COMMITTEE. 

HERBERT WELSH, 

WILLIAM G. LOW, 

DORMAN B. EATON, 

WILLIAM POTTS, 

CHARLES RICHARDSON, 
SHERMAN S. ROGERS, 

CARL SCHURZ, 

EDWARD M. SHEPARD, 
MOORFIELD STOREY, 

EVERETT P. WHEELER, 
WYMAN, JH. 

the League^ 

* 

No. 54 William St., New York. 















